Author
Topic: Arca Swiss plate for EOS M (Read 27493 times)

because i backpack for days on end hiking through yosemite, europe, or wherever I am travelling through.

not having to bring the tripod collar for both my 100L macro and 70-200 would be a very welcome reduction to bulk and weight, not to mention shedding what feels like more than a few pounds leaving the 5D behind.

A good reason to want to limit what you are carrying, but I don't think I'd be comfortable hanging my 70-200/2.8 off of the EOS-M adapter. I have not tried it, however.

It's certainly easy enough for you to test and decide if you are happy with it. I'd like to hear what you determine.

One point to note - with the plate installed and the foot mounted on the adapter, the adapter cannot be mounted on (or unmounted from) the EOS M. You need to loosen the knurled knob on foot - not the plate, just the foot, and just loose, no need to remove it. With everything tightened, the plate doesn't quite clear the corner of the M.

A good reason to want to limit what you are carrying, but I don't think I'd be comfortable hanging my 70-200/2.8 off of the EOS-M adapter. I have not tried it, however.

It works. Of course, with a ballhead less robust than the RRS BH-55 LR, it's quite likely you'd see settling and drift with a front-heavy load like that (and carrying a more robust ballhead just save on the weight of the tripod collar likely isn't the best choice).

One point to note - with the plate installed and the foot mounted on the adapter, the adapter cannot be mounted on (or unmounted from) the EOS M. You need to loosen the knurled knob on foot - not the plate, just the foot, and just loose, no need to remove it. With everything tightened, the plate doesn't quite clear the corner of the M.

I have a Kirk PZ-130 on mine right now. It has a lip to prevent rotation that sticks out a little in the back, but it clears the camera by at least 1mm. It's a little short (doesn't quite extend to the front) so I will probably be replacing it with something longer just to have more room to grip

A good reason to want to limit what you are carrying, but I don't think I'd be comfortable hanging my 70-200/2.8 off of the EOS-M adapter. I have not tried it, however.

It works. Of course, with a ballhead less robust than the RRS BH-55 LR, it's quite likely you'd see settling and drift with a front-heavy load like that (and carrying a more robust ballhead just save on the weight of the tripod collar likely isn't the best choice).

I didn't doubt that it would physically work. I'm just not sure how far I trust the screws holding the adapter together. And, I think I'd definitely be more comfortable using the Canon adapter than I would a knockoff.

Carrying extra weight into the back country is one thing. Carrying a broken lens out is something else.

I haven't had my EOS-M on my 70-200 yet, but it has hung on the back of my 300/4.

Although I put an arca plate on my M adapter playing around while waiting for my M to arrive, I really can't come up with a scenario where I would use the adapter's foot. Considering the weight of the M and the distance between the body tripod mount and the adapter mount (1.5"?), I think the adapter foot is superfluous. It's a very slight shift of the center of balance. Unless I'm missing something, I'll be using my lens collars.

Although I put an arca plate on my M adapter playing around while waiting for my M to arrive, I really can't come up with a scenario where I would use the adapter's foot. Considering the weight of the M and the distance between the body tripod mount and the adapter mount (1.5"?), I think the adapter foot is superfluous. It's a very slight shift of the center of balance. Unless I'm missing something, I'll be using my lens collars.

What about EF and EF-S lenses without collars? Canon does make a few of those...

I hear you about the balance, but what the adapter foot does is take the weight of the lens off the mount on the EOS M, which given it's smaller size is likely not as robust. That's the reason Canon provides a collar for some lenses (to take some weight off the mount) and I suspect why there's a foot on the adapter.

Although I put an arca plate on my M adapter playing around while waiting for my M to arrive, I really can't come up with a scenario where I would use the adapter's foot. Considering the weight of the M and the distance between the body tripod mount and the adapter mount (1.5"?), I think the adapter foot is superfluous. It's a very slight shift of the center of balance. Unless I'm missing something, I'll be using my lens collars.

What about EF and EF-S lenses without collars? Canon does make a few of those...

Well, the heaviest lens I have without an option to use a lens collar is my SP24-70VC. I simply use the camera mount. If the M is as robust as has been reported (mine arrives tomorrow), I will do the same. If I am not satisfied with the strength of the mount, then I most certainly will use the adapter's foot.

Although I put an arca plate on my M adapter playing around while waiting for my M to arrive, I really can't come up with a scenario where I would use the adapter's foot. Considering the weight of the M and the distance between the body tripod mount and the adapter mount (1.5"?), I think the adapter foot is superfluous. It's a very slight shift of the center of balance. Unless I'm missing something, I'll be using my lens collars.

What about EF and EF-S lenses without collars? Canon does make a few of those...

Well, the heaviest lens I have without an option to use a lens collar is my SP24-70VC. I simply use the camera mount. If the M is as robust as has been reported (mine arrives tomorrow), I will do the same with it. For the reasons stated above, I don't think that 1.5" will make much of a difference. This is of course speculation and I could be wrong, but it seems that way to me...

Although I put an arca plate on my M adapter playing around while waiting for my M to arrive, I really can't come up with a scenario where I would use the adapter's foot. Considering the weight of the M and the distance between the body tripod mount and the adapter mount (1.5"?), I think the adapter foot is superfluous. It's a very slight shift of the center of balance. Unless I'm missing something, I'll be using my lens collars.

What about EF and EF-S lenses without collars? Canon does make a few of those...

Well, the heaviest lens I have without an option to use a lens collar is my SP24-70VC. I simply use the camera mount. If the M is as robust as has been reported (mine arrives tomorrow), I will do the same with it. For the reasons stated above, I don't think that 1.5" will make much of a difference. This is of course speculation and I could be wrong, but it seems that way to me...

FYI, I don't have this, my M arrived today. Was thinking of the RRS L-plate, but it's big. Your question reminded me of Hejnar's little plates, the 0.8" 3-hole plate without ridge looks like it would work.

So, I ordered one of these as a body plate for the EOS M, and it works very well. It's small and low profile, and when attached to the tripod socket through the middle hole there's sufficient clearance for the battery door to open for card/battery access. I miss the anti-twist feature of a dedicated plate, but I can live without it for the occasional use it will get. If I were going to use the EOS M as a travel camera with EF-M lenses, I'd opt for a dedicated solution like RRS' very nice modular plate/L-bracket setup, but for me the EOS M is primarily a walkaround small substitute when I can't bring the dSLR, or a backup for travel. Since the EF adapter has a tripod foot, I'll only rarely want to put the M directly on a tripod. The Hejnar plate provides a nice (and inexpensive) option when I want to do so.

I use the RRS R82 (lens foot plate) with my EOS M. It's not designed for it (I use it on my 180mm macro), but works really well (it doesn't rotate) and - I think, leaves room to open the battery door. I'll have to check.

For anyone still interested, I stumbled on an alternative RRS lens plate to the B26, etc. for the EOS M adapter foot that overcomes the interference problem when an RRS camera plate is already on the M. The MPR-73 allows you to flush the back of the adapter foot with the back of the lens plate, providing the necessary clearance to remove the adapter/lens combination without first removing the adapter foot or plate. There is no room for the flange in this situation, but the flange screws alone still provide a bit of anti-twist support.

I use that plate on an Olympus PEN and agree that is probably a good bet. It has a low back lip to prevent twisting and the screw can be moved between 3 slots to accommodate different tripod socket positions, so it's quite generic for P&S and small mirrorless cameras.

My EOS M will be arriving in a day or two, and I'd like to get it paired properly with a small, arca swiss compatible plate that doesn't extend way past the body (like a typical DSLR plate would on the M)

Any one out there happy with the one they are using? I'd like to keep it semi permanently attached to the camera, so not blocking the battery door is a must.

Thanks!

Dear BLHere is another option that fit your EOS-M need for both additional grip and Arca-Swiss Plate---And Cheap too.

My EOS M will be arriving in a day or two, and I'd like to get it paired properly with a small, arca swiss compatible plate that doesn't extend way past the body (like a typical DSLR plate would on the M)

Any one out there happy with the one they are using? I'd like to keep it semi permanently attached to the camera, so not blocking the battery door is a must.

Thanks!

Dear BLHere is another option that fit your EOS-M need for both additional grip and Arca-Swiss Plate---And Cheap too.